Columnist, Daily Life

I stand before you as a beneficiary of welfare. Make your own judgments. I know you will anyway.

In 1985, when our eldest child was about six months old, we went to marriage guidance counselling. It was recommended by my GP who, I think, could no longer bear me sobbing in her office every other week.

We were broke - we'd bought a house not long before having our darling girl; both still in entry level jobs. I had zero family support and went back to work when our baby was five weeks old. (In case you want to know, she appears to be neither an axe murderer nor any other kind of sociopath although she does like kittens, a serious personal failing.)

The GP insisted we go and we ended up being counselled by a saint of a woman called Nora Huppert who worked for a counselling service that received government funding. Nora died in 2012, lauded by the many people she helped. The organisation took one look at our finances and said we could get counselling for free. Here we are 28 years later and we've now produced three little taxpayers.*

Advertisement

Amid news that Australian couples will be able to apply for a $200 relationship voucher from July 1 next year, I'd have to say it's the sole decent idea the Abbott government's produced.

Of course, like much else Abbottesque, it's done badly. For reasons unclear. And most likely conceived to shore up the financial state of churches that usually go in for supporting traditional relationships. How convenient it would be to get $200 in the till when an about-to-wed couple rocks up to book the ceremony - churches specialise in an unproven practice called premarital counselling. Still looking for science that it works. Plus, it's kind of icky, isn't it, that until just a little while ago, Margaret Andrews, the wife of the minister in charge of this proposal, was earning good money from marriage education?

To me, it's hard to understand why it is that a government that rejects refugees, cuts foreign aid, withdraws funding for early intervention programs for vulnerable teenagers - among other signs this government hates actual living people - why it is that they've chosen to fund relationship counselling. It is a little unclear no matter how much I read about it.

And it is uncharacteristic.

It's welfare, people, just not as we know it. Welfare usually goes to people who really really, really need it. But not under Abbott. Welfare will go to bankers on maternity leave, not to single mothers on parenting payments. It's confusing.

But let's not reject relationship counselling just because it's a suggestion of this government. There is no doubt it is a useful tool and, to be honest, should be something we sign up for before we sign joint leases of more than three months. Someone to give you a hand at understanding how to deal with conflict, how to deal with money, to help you make compromises when you come from different planets.

Mostly, we drift into relationships. We don't really have positive intent, just a recognition that the prospective partner, somewhere along the way, is more than a shag and a shower. We put more effort into hiring people for our workplaces than we do into moving in with someone. For the rest of our lives.

It's ludicrous, of course, to suggest that counselling works for everyone. Counsellors are a mixed bunch and you might end up with someone who can't give you and your partner practical advice. And it's no surprise to me that this proposal has had enthusiastic backing from those organisations most likely to benefit - and that includes Relationships Australia, an institution for which I have great respect.

They can't prove it works - and if you look at the academic literature on relationship counselling, no one actually shows it will prevent separation or divorce. But there is no doubt we can all do a lot more to be better prepared when we enter into permanent arrangements.

I cannot believe the number of times I hear that marriages come unstuck because of differing views about sex, money, housework, kids (to have or not have), religion. None of that gets sorted just because you are having mind-blowing sex. If it ever does get sorted, it's usually the result of hard-scrabble negotiations (I cannot believe I ended up with only three children, but He Who Must Never Be Written About deals tough).

Which is why I'm all for government support of relationship counselling. But don't hand out vouchers for use with educators such as Mrs Andrews - make it Medicare claimable.

Relationships get diseased. Think of counselling as preventative medicine.

*And Nora's top tip? Children are utterly wonderful, adorable and captivating. You can spend your entire life enthralled by them. But you met your partner first. So pay attention.

50 comments

So, you are happy about this but it comes from an ideologically tainted source. You would encourage people to use it, but those damned churches are in on the act. The responsible minister's wife is 'icky'. What on earth have any of these sentiments got to do with your central point: that counselling can work? By the by, some therapy is covered by medicare, but not counselling, so this is an advance, despite your reservations. Yes, it 'can' work. That it doesn't work in all cases in hardly surprising, so why do you invoke a half-baked notion of proof? And adopt a more whole hearted approach to a recommendation, rather than subverting the message with irrelevant considerations and negative rhetoric.

Commenter

Cato

Location

Katoomba

Date and time

January 28, 2014, 4:20AM

@ Cato,

Well said! The author is so confused. It is a good thing for society, anything that stops family breakdowns. No it is not a Christian conspiracy about pocketing money, priests do not charge for marriage counselling. It is good to see a government helping to protect the family, rather than the previous joke of a government.

Commenter

Anthony

Date and time

January 28, 2014, 5:49AM

I am amazed how taxpayers fund raising other peoples kids and now destined to fund their personal marital problems in a land of "no fault divorce" . And, if people need counselling then it is obvious they are not compatible. Govt should not be playing marital psychiatrist with our tax funds and no tax raising powers to fit marital counselling other than one created a while back for divorce counselling. Nannyism and cheap shots for political posturing in Australia needs to stop. All it is, is a reflection of a Government with no real policy ideas on the more pressing matters like mending our ailing economy or core portfolio issues, so they latch onto feel-good issues, the very theme of why they keep getting voted out each time and trade places. If someone values their relationship and are so incompatible they cant communicate, then I'm'm sure they will gladly fund their own counselling. .

Commenter

Brian Woods

Date and time

January 28, 2014, 5:50AM

May I add, that most modern couples do not even live together and don't want to, or the woman has adult kids at home these days. So where do we start qualification of what constitutes a real coupleship, maybe we are going to discover some very odd facts.

Commenter

Brian Woods

Date and time

January 28, 2014, 6:05AM

Brian, perhaps you don't want to live in a society. Your choice. Those of us who do willingly pay taxes that support education and social services. Think of it as social defence if that will make you feel easier. Jenna Price rightly points to the economic and other pressures on young couples. The strain on relationships affects family, friends and society at large as well as couples. The views of those who believe that people should 'fix' relationship problems themselves are naive and ill informed. Anyone who knows anything about this area could only applaud Andrews's policy. Your taxes will not be wasted.

Commenter

Cato

Location

Katoomba

Date and time

January 28, 2014, 6:06AM

My relationship with the Abbott Government is extremely poor, irretreivable I would say. It will take more than $200 to fix it.

Commenter

GOV

Location

Sydney

Date and time

January 28, 2014, 6:42AM

@ Brian Woods,

The problem is failed families increase the likelihood of children with psychological disorders. This increases the likelihood of social disorder and more costs for the tax payer. At present there has never been so many children on anti-depressants, that's right children unable to cope! Why??....Broken families!...This indirectly costs the tax payer lots of money, good functional families are the back bone for a good society, it is not rocket science or, a Christian conspiracy it is a simple fact...

Commenter

Anthony

Date and time

January 28, 2014, 7:05AM

The Churches DO NO OWN marriage! But they seem to have the lot of us fooled about that fact. How is it that a bunch of 'deliberately barren' men who wear dresses get to tell the rest of us how to manage our bedroom antics? Am I the only one who finds it a bit bizarre?

Commenter

Caffetierra Moka

Location

Sector 7-G

Date and time

January 28, 2014, 8:27AM

@ Cafeteira Moka,

If a mum and dad which don't break up for the sake of keeping the family together, does not mean the church owns marriage! But it does provide evidence why traditional marriage is best for society. Who said anything about priests giving sex counselling? There is more to a healthy relationship than sex.

Commenter

Anthony

Date and time

January 28, 2014, 9:39AM

Jenna Price, wise words: "It's ludicrous, of course, to suggest that counselling works for everyone. Counsellors are a mixed bunch and you might end up with someone who can't give you and your partner practical advice."And the statement: "They can't prove it works - and if you look at the academic literature on relationship counselling, no one actually shows it will prevent separation or divorce. But there is no doubt we can all do a lot more to be better prepared when we enter into permanent arrangements".I would certainly add my words of caution - regarding people expecting too much from marriage counsellors (or the medical profession, generally).To go to a broader but related issue: There is an increasing tendency to 'medicalise' our 'distress' and unhappiness - to see life difficulties through a medical prism; something that may attract a diagnosis and require some kind of medical intervention (or, even, 'treatment').For most people, they are the best person to decide where their life should go - and how to deal with their particular life challenges; in fact, negotiating these things brings a maturation of our personality and coping strategies - and psychological resilience and self-belief. Despite your positive experience with marriage counselling, I would urge more thought before launching into this idea - there is no 'proof' that it works (your anecdotal account aside) and there is this potentially risky notion that we should 'medicalise' a quite normal and common life difficulty of relationship problems (and seek medical intervention). Of course, there may be exceptions - I suspect these would be uncommon.